(21-02-2014 12:46 PM)diddo97 Wrote: It would be incredible arrogant of me to assume there's no God. Atheism is a cop out from God's divine punishment for me (Chirstianity is also a cop out).

It would be "arrogant" to assume that there's no God? If we do not assume that all claims are false until proven to be true or at least reasonably reliable, then we are arrogant. Would it be arrogant of you to assume that an accused criminal is innocent until proven guilty? No it wouldn't. If we assume that a criminal is guilty, no further proof is required -- we can just say "they're guilty" and lock 'em up. If we assume that a criminal is not guilty, evidence is required to support the claim that they are guilty. The same goes for God. If we assume that he exists, no further evidence is required. If we assume that he doesn't exist, we require evidence to support the claim that he exists. Atheism is basically the position that assumes that God is innocent of the crime of existing. If we're given proof, the verdict will change. That is why I am an atheist, and probably why most of the people here are atheists. Besides, if he did exist, how would being an atheist protect you from divine punishment? It's not a cop out if it doesn't accomplish anything.
Also, dude, lighten up. You're always all doom and gloom and "I deserve to burn". Have a cookie:

(21-02-2014 12:46 PM)diddo97 Wrote: It would be incredible arrogant of me to assume there's no God. Atheism is a cop out from God's divine punishment for me (Chirstianity is also a cop out).

It would be "arrogant" to assume that there's no God? If we do not assume that all claims are false until proven to be true or at least reasonably reliable, then we are arrogant. Would it be arrogant of you to assume that an accused criminal is innocent until proven guilty? No it wouldn't. If we assume that a criminal is guilty, no further proof is required -- we can just say "they're guilty" and lock 'em up. If we assume that a criminal is not guilty, evidence is required to support the claim that they are guilty. The same goes for God. If we assume that he exists, no further evidence is required. If we assume that he doesn't exist, we require evidence to support the claim that he exists. Atheism is basically the position that assumes that God is innocent of the crime of existing. If we're given proof, the verdict will change. That is why I am an atheist, and probably why most of the people here are atheists. Besides, if he did exist, how would being an atheist protect you from divine punishment? It's not a cop out if it doesn't accomplish anything.
Also, dude, lighten up. You're always all doom and gloom and "I deserve to burn". Have a cookie:

The fact that my body desires that cookie proves that I'm a dirty monkey.